913 

Qese 


UC-NRLF 


B  3  sm  SSh 


t¥^ 
w 


LECTURES 


PXUTXBKD  BSrOUl  THB 


MERCANTILE  LIBRARY 

ASSOCIATION, 


CLINTON-HALL. 


AMERICAN  CRITICISM  ON  AMERICAN  LITERATURE 

BT 

EDWARD    S.    GOULD,   ESQ., 

/'' 

December  29, 1835. 


THE  BENEFITS  AND  INFLUENCES  OF  COMMERCE: 

BY 

JOHN  H.   OOURLIE,   ESQ., 
Janiunr  5, 1636. 


JJEW.YORK:. 

FRnrrsD  for  thb  mercantilb  library  association. 

1836. 


lVt.t41Sow.ltN. 


Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  MercarUile  Library  Association, 
January  9,  1836. 

Resolved — That  the  thanki  of  the  Mercantile  Library  Association  b« 
tendered  to  Edward  S.  Gocld  and  Johr  H.  Gocrlie,  for  the  very  able 
and  instractive  Lectures  delivered  by  them  before  its  members  and  friends; 
and  that  the  Secretary  be  directed  to  request  their  permission  to  publish 
those  Lectures,  as  an  additional  (gratification  to  that  we  already  experience 
at  being  enabled  to  claim  them  as  members  of  our  A^Mciation. 


New-York,  Jan.  21,  1836. 
Sir, 

I  am  much  gratified  with  the  approbation  of  my  Lecture,  expressed 
by  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Mercantile  Library  Association. 

The  publication  of  this  Lecture  was  not  originally  contemplated  or  in- 
tended. 1  was,  and  am,  aware  that  its  tenor  and  strictures  must  neces- 
sarily give  offence  to  some,  and  probably  induce  personal  replies;  for  I 
have  lived  long  enough  to  know,  that  nothing  in  criticism  is  so  offensive  to 
the  parties  interested— as  truth.  I  was,  however,  by  the  solicitation  of  my 
particular  friend,  the  Editor  of  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review,  in- 
duced  to  consent  to  his  publishing  the  Lecture  in  his  March  number;  and 
since  the  question  of  publicity  is  thus  decided,  I  can  of  course  have  no 
hesitation  in  complying  with  the  request  of  your  Directors. 

You  will  oblige  me  by  expressing  to  them  the  pleasure  and  the  pride  I 
feel  in  acknowledging  the  compliment  they  have  accorded  to  me;  and  I 
beg  that  they  will  receive  assurances  of  my  personal  regard,  together  with 
my  best  wishes  for  the  prosperity  of  the  flourishing  institution  now  under 
their  charge. 

I  am,  sir,  yours  truly, 

EDWARD  S.  GOULD. 
Tff  the  Secretary  of  the  M.  L.  Association. 


New- York,  Jan.  26,  1836. 

OIR, 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communica- 
tion, requesung  a  copy  of  my  Lecture  delivered  before  the  members  of  the 
MercanUle  Library  Association  for  publication,  and  also  a  copy  of  the  Re- 
«)lut.ons  passed  by  the  Board  of  Directors  in  reference  to  the  same 

I  feel  my^lf  flattered  by  this  evidence  of  their  approbation,  and  .haU 
llhe'ir^*!^'"'  opportunity  of  preparing  .  copy  of  my  Lecture  to  be  at 

I  beg  leave  to  present,  through,  you  my  best  wishes  for  their  iodiTida»I 
bappineM  and  the  prosperity  of  their  most  excellent  instiluUon. 
Your  obedient  servuit, 

JOHN  H.  GOURUE. 
To  tk»  SecreUuy  iff  th4  M.  L,  JUsodaiUm. 

004 


LECTURE    I. 

BY  EDWARD  8.  GOULD. 

AMERICAN    CRITICISM 

Ol» 

AMERICAN  LITERATURE. 


The  title  of  "  American  Criticism  on  American  Litera- 
ture^ has  been  chosen  for  the  following  remarks,  because  it 
is  more  concise  than  any  other  that  suggested  itself:  but,  to 
ensure  a  distinct  understanding,  at  the  commencement,  of 
what  is  proposed,  it  may  be  well  to  explain,  that  the  term 
**  American  Literature,**  in  this  instance,  refers  exclusively 
to  that  part  of  our  Polite  Literature  generally  designated  as 
*•  fictitious  writings  ;**  and  that  the  criticisms  on  the  various 
works  of  that  character,  as  they  appear  in  our  daily  and 
weekly  papers,  monthly  magazines,  and  quarterly  reviews, 
will  be  the  principal  subject  of  discussion. 

The  Polite  Literature  of  America  has  thus  far  been  pro- 
lific beyond  all  precedent  in  other  countries— beyond  all  ex- 
pectation in  our  own.  Within  the  short  period  of  fifty  years, 
it  has  increased,  firom  a  few  straggling  volumes,  to  the  full 
compass  of  a  National  Library.  It  already  embraces  works 
in  every  department  of  letters,  and  has  attained  an  excel- 
lence and  a  celebrity  which  no  other  people,  of  age  and  ad- 
vantages similar  to  our  own,  have  equalled.  Here,  as  in 
every  chapter  of  our  country's  history,  may  be  read  the  proof 

2 


o  AMXBiCAN  cnmcisM 

of  our  unparalleled  national  growth ;  and  perhaps  this  is  the 
only  instance  in  which  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  our  pro- 
gress is  too  rapid,  and  our  growth  unsound. 

It  is  true  that,  in  many  departments  of  abstract  science, 
as  well  as  in  Theology,  in  Law,  in  Medicine  and  Surgery, 
in  Oratory,  and  in  the  Mechanical  Arts,  we  have  attained  a 
degree  of  excellence  that,  probably,  is  not  surpassed  by  any 
people  under  the  sun.  But  in  Polite  Literature,  our  Ameri- 
can writers  have  much  to  accomplish  ere  they  can  stand  side 
by  side  with  the  gifted  authors  of  older  climes,  who  draw 
their  first  breath  in  the  very  groves  of  the  Academy,  and 
inhale  inspiration  with  every  breeze  that  sweeps  over  the 
tombs  of  the  immortal  dead.  I  would  not,  however,  by  such 
an  allusion,  detract  one  iota  from  the  actual  merits  of  our 
own  writers  •,  nor  imply,  that  the  distance  between  our  na- 
tional literature  and  that  of  other  countries  is  impassable. 
I  would,  rather,  exult  in  tlie  belief  that  our  writers  have  al- 
ready won  laurels  of  enduring  freshness  and  beauty ;  that, 
whatever  may  be  our  comparative  deficiencies,  our  career 
in  Polite  Literature  is,  now,  no  more  an  experiment  than  the 
principles  and  power  of  the  Constitution  which  cements  our 
Union  together ;  and,  that  our  literary  immortality  is  now  no 
more  a  matter  of  contingency,  than  the  question  whether  our 
country  is  rapidly  advancing  to  the  highest  pitch  of  national 
grandeur. 

In  fact,  our  having  attained  excellence  in  both  Literature 
and  the  Fine  Arts,  is  not,  and  cannot  be  a  subject  of  doubt ; 
but  an  inquiry  must  necessarily  arise  as  to  the  degree  of  that 
excellence,  and  the  answer  involves  high  interests,  and  re- 
quires great  consideration. 

To  a  certain  extent,  our  improvement  in  those  depart- 
ments may  have  kept  pace  with  our  national  prosperity ; 
but  there  is  a  point  where  (for  various  reasons)  mental  acqui- 
sition ceases  to  proceed  with  the  same  rapidity  as  mere 
physical  growth — and  at  that  point  we  have  some  time  since 


ON  AMERICAN  LITERATURE.  '7 

arrived.  For  while  our  country  has  advanced  far  toward 
the  summit  of  physical  eminence  and  power,  she  is  yet,  as 
regards  Literature  and  the  Arts,  far  below  the  highest  at- 
tainable elevation  of  fame.  A  mere  reference  to  names  will 
sustain  this  assertion.  We  have  sculptors,  painters,  novel- 
ists, and  poets ;  but  we  have  not  a  Canova,  a  Raphael,  a 
Scott,  or  a  Shakspeare.  Nay,  we  not  only  have  them 
not,  but  the  incidental  repetition  of  their  very  names  seems 
to  send  a  chill  of  discouragement  and  despair  through  the 
mind,  even  when  excited  by  its  wildest  hopes  and  boldest 
imaginings. 

But,  although  such  discouragement  is  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  a  first  impression,  it  has  no  foundation  in  reason. 
The  repetition  of  the  names  of  *'  the  mighty  dead"  ought  to 
inspire  ambition,  rather  than  produce  despondency.  Emu- 
lation is  the  appropriate  result  of  musing  over  the  monu- 
ments of  by-gone  greatness  :  but  if  we  can  call  up  the  recol- 
lection of  what  has  been,  only  to  be  alarmed  and  intimidated 
at  the  grandeur  of  the  apparition,  we  had  much  better  forget 
that  "  such  things  were."  There  are,  in  truth,  neither  moral 
nor  physical  causes  to  prevent,  though,  unhappily,  there  may 
be  some  to  delay,  our  attaining  that  degree  of  eminence  in 
Literature  and  the  Arts  which  other  and  older  nations  enjoy ; 
and  a  consideration  of  the  causes  of  such  delay,  so  far  as  they 
are  identified  with  the  character  of  our  National  Criticism,  is 
the  chief  object  of  the  present  remarks. 

It  may  be  stated,  in  general  terms,  that  the  prominent 
obstacles  to  our  more  rapid  advancement  in  letters  are — 

An  unfortunate  propensity,  on  the  part  of  the  public,  to 
admire  indiscriminately,  and  with  little  qualification,  every 
thing  American ;  and 

The  want  of  an  effective,  and  independent  censorship  in 
the  department  of  our  Literary  Reviews. 

It  b  possible  that,  in  times  past,  Americans  deferred  too 
much  to  the  literature  of  the  mother  country.    It  may  be 


9^  ASnSRICAIf  CRITICISM 

true,  that  we  once  dared  not  admire  a  book  of  d<Hne8tie  ori- 
gin, until  an  imported  opinion  favourably  preceded  its  intro- 
duction to  its  native  country.  It  mat/t  even,  be  true,  (and  it 
may  also  be  doubted,)  that  the  boisterous  and  arrogant  de- 
nunciation of  all  deference  to  foreign  talents  and  opinions, 
which  has  recently  been  trumpeted  among  us  by  parties  per- 
sonally interested,  was  in  some  measure  called  for  and  de- 
served. But  that  day  has  gone  by — American  writers  are 
just  now  in  no  danger  of  neglect,  or  of  wasting  their  sweet- 
ness on  the  desert  air.  They  have  no  longer  to  contend 
with  the  apathy  or  incredulity  of  their  countrymen,  as  touch- 
ing their  fame  and  their  ability :  they  have  only  to  scribble 
over  a  given  number  of  quires,  and  their  reputation  is  estab- 
lished. The  public  have  fallen  into  that  comfortable  posi- 
tion assigned  to  them  by  Sheridan  ;  they  "  do  not  undergo 
the  fatigue  of  judging  for  themselves."  They  have  an  opin- 
ion, certainly ;  and  it  is  of  sufficient  potency  to  decide  the 
fate  of  a  whole  generation  of  authors  :  but,  under  the  exist- 
ing circumstances,  it  is  most  unfortunate  that  this  opinion  is 
originated  and  controlled  by  our  Literary  Reviews. 

If  these  Reviews  could  happen  to  be  strictly  intelligent,  dis- 
criminating, and  impartial,  our  present  subjection  to  them  were 
the  most  propitious  infliction  that  we  could  possibly  sustain  { 
for  human  taste  is  too  incorrigibly  lawless,  to  be  governed 
on  republican  principles.  If  it  be  true,  in  political  science, 
that  many  communities  are  either  too  fickle,  or  too  depraved 
to  enjoy  rational  liberty,  without  abusing  it,  and  they  there- 
fore must  be  ruled  with  a  rod  of  iron ;  equally  true  is  it  that 
the  public  taste,  in  all  communities,  is  too  erratic  to  be 
trusted  in  any  other  guardianship,  than  the  stem  despotism 
of  a  literary  tribunal.  And  the  moment  that  such  a  tribunal 
is  founded,  and  directed  on  the  principles  of  truth  and  impar- 
tiality, the  desideratum,  in  that  department,  is  realized. 

Should  this  be  deemed  an  undeserved  reproach  on  the 
public  taste,  an  example  from  past  days  is  at  hand,  which 


ON  AHERICAJf  LITSRATURE.  0 

fully  justifies  it.     The  ever  memorable  Della  Cruscan 
mania,  in  the  time  of  Wiluam  Gifford,  is  a  striking  instance 
of  the  extravagance  and  folly  into  which  the  public  taste,  in 
an  enlightened  community,  may  degenerate,  when  tliat  taste 
comes  under  the  detestable  influence  of  Fashion^  and  is  un- 
checked by  the  Spartan  firmness  and  valour  of  sound  criti- 
cism.   We  can  also  learn  from  that  astounding  precedent 
the  danger  of  hcense  to  authors,  as  well  as  of  forbearance  on 
the  part  of  their  legitimate  monitors ;  and  we  should  do  well 
to  remember,  that  although  the  same  tolerance  on  the  part  of 
the  public,  and  the  same  apathy  and  neglect  on  the  part  of 
the  Reviewers,  will  always  tend  to  the  same  disastrous 
results ;  there  may  not  always  be  found  a  Gippord  to  correct 
them. 

Whether  we  are  to  have  a  Della  Cruscan  age  of  our  own, 
it  is  not  easy  to  say ;  but  it  is  certain  that  we  shall  not  escape 
such  disgrace  through  the  present  exertions  of  our  Critics. 
The  encroachment  of  false  taste  is,  apparently,  the  least  of 
their  concern ;  and  the  success  of  any  innovation,  however 
monstrous,  would  seem  to  be  a  matter  in  which  they  take  no 
interest  At  least,  it  is  true  that,  as  a  body,  they  evince  no 
interest  in  the  welfare  of  our  Literature,  by  expending  time 
or  talent  in  its  revision.  Their  criticisms  are,  for  the  most 
part,  superficial  in  every  particular.  They  very  seldom  de- 
scend to  the  analysis  of  merit  and  demerit,  in  detail.  They 
give  no  reasons  why  this  is  pronounced  excellent ;  or  that, 
execrable.  They  deal  chiefly  in  general  terms,  and  hyper- 
bole ;  seize  some  one  prominent  feature,  and  make  that  the 
criterion  for  their  verdict ;  and,  by  means  of  extracts,  fill  up 
a  large  space  with  the  sentiments  of  the  author,  which  should 
be  occupied  by  their  own.* 

•  It  may  b«  added  to  thia  enumeration  of  the  qualitiea  of  contfimpomy  crit- 
ics, that  some  of  them  display  a  brilliancy,  an  acuteneaa,  and  an  ori^nality 
worthy  <rf' all  praiiM,  in  melapnorical  compariaont  a  atyle  of  puflBng,  .Which  la 
more  oriet  yet  more  comprehsnsive.  than  any  other.  After  all  epitheta  fail,  th« 
•nthonmon  rcTiew  ia  Munmahly  oubbed  tiu  American  iUmtms,  tiu  Ariuriam, 


10  .    AMERICAN  CRITICnM 

It  ii,  at  first  Bight,  inexplicable,  that  they  who,  by  tacit 
oonient,  occupy  the  post  of  guardians  of  the  public  taste,  and 
the  welfare  of  Literature,  should  so  far  neglect  their  high 
trust,  and  betray  the  confidence  reposed  in  them  ;  but  some 
of  the  causes  of  their  delinquency  may  easily  be  explained. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  whoever  writes  or  publishes  a  book, 
Bends  copies,  with  his  compliments,  to  the  several  editors. 
This,  in  many  cases,  puts  an  end  to  fault-finding,  at  least ; 
and,  as  a  general  rule,  the  editor  must,  in  common  courtesy, 
either  give  a  favourable  notice,  or  announce  the  title  of  the 
book  in  capitals,  state  who  has  it  for  sale,  and  add,  that "  want 
of  room"  excludes  any  remarks  for  to-day,  or,  for  this  num- 
ber. This  sort  of  practical  bribery  was  harmless  enough, 
when  it  was  confined  to  some  new  invention  in  mechanical 
art ;  a  basket  of  gooseberries,  or  a  mammoth-turnip.  If  an 
editor  received  something  of  this  kind,  and  chose  to  pay  for 
it  in  compliments,  it  wns  '•  a  fair  business  transaction,"  and 
no  one  was  essentially  injured  or  deceived  by  it.  But  when, 
in  accordance  to  the  same  plan,  the  works  of  genius  and 
imagination  are  substituted  for  the  products  of  vegetable 
growth,  or  mechanical  ingenuity,  and  the  compliments  thet/ 
elicit  go  forth  to  the  world  as  disinterested  opinions,  and  are 
suffered  to  ingraft  corruption  on  the  public  taste,  the  merits 
of  the  custom  are  changed,  and  its  evils  are  painfully  ap- 
parent 

II.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  an 
author  or  publisher  to  employ  a  literary  friend  to  prepare  an 
assortment  of  impartial  und  discriminating  articles  on  a  new 
book.  These,  some  editors  will  always  publish,  because 
they  are  unwilling  to  disoblige  the  applicant ;  or  because 
they  are  thus  saved  the  trouble  of  writing  themselves ;  or 
because  they  take  no  interest  in  the  matter  whatever.  Never- 

Ooldtmith,  the  American  Addison,  &c.  When  we  come  to  be  posseescd  of  an 
AmtaicAN  Milton,  and  an  Ameikcan  Shakspxare,  (events  not  far  distant,  if 
analogy  proves  any  thing.)  we  shall  probably  ceaae  to  make  progress  in  literary 
•xcellence,  from  sheer  lack  of  eompetUionl 


ON  AMERICAX  LITERATURE.  11 

theless,  as  such  articles  go  abroad  with  the  editor's  sanc- 
tion, they  carry  with  them  his  influence  in  favour  of  a  parti- 
cular book  ;  although  they  were  written  under  the  eye,  and 
perhaps  at  the  dictation,  of  the  author  they  applaud  I  It  is 
needless  to  add,  that  such  reviews  give  to  the  world  a  very 
correct  notion  of  the  merits  of  a  book. 

III.  A  third  cause — and  one  which  has  influence  with 
some  of  the  few  Critics  who  really  seem  to  feel  interested  in 
the  prosperity  of  our  National  Literature — is  to  be  found  in  a 
sincere  disposition  to  encourage  the  growth  of  native  genius ; 
combined  with  a  fear  of  checking  that  growth  by  what  they 
call  premature,  but  what  would  be,  in  fact,  deserved,  severity. 
That  is  to  say,  a  Critic  will  praise  a  book  highly,  which  he  well 
knows  is  unworthy  of  such  praise,  in  order  to  encourage  its 
writer.  This  is  an  instance  of  the  best  of  motives,  accom- 
panied by  the  worst  of  judgment.  No  permanent  benefit  can 
accrue  to  Literature,  nor  to  any  thing  else,  by  means  of  a 
system  of  deception,  and  which  has  no  better  plea  than  expe- 
diency. That  which  cannot  be  supported  by  truth,  cannot 
long  be  sustained  by  any  means  whatever.  But,  apart  from 
that  moral  vacillation  which  suppresses  truth,  for  the  purpose 
of  encouragement  to  native  genius,  the  plan  is  absurd  on 
philosophical  principles.  The  praise  bestowed,  indiscrimi- 
nately, on  writers  of  great  merit,  and  little  merit,  and  no  merit, 
with  a  view  to  encourage  whatever  of  genius  exists  in  the 
mass ;  fails  entirely  in  its  object,  and  ceases  to  be  encourage- 
ment, from  the  very  fact  of  its  being  general.  If  the  design 
"were  to  encourage  blockheads,  the  plan  is  well  devised ;  but 
genius  is  usually  too  selfish  and  too  jealous  to  relish  a  parti- 
tion of  its  exclusive  rights ;  and  is  disgusted,  not  encouraged, 
by  being  placed  on  a  par  with  the  multitude.  The  school 
master,  who  flogged  all  around  the  class,  to  ensure  the  pun- 
ishment of  one  whom  he  could  not  individually  detect ;  dis- 
played the  same  sagacity  as  the  critic  who  praises  all  to  the 
very  extent  of  his  power,  lest  some  one  deserving  of  praise 


12  AMEIUCAll  CRinCtSlf 

should  happ«i  to  be  omitted.  In  either  case,  the  moral  effect 
of  the  reward  is  entirely  lost 

IV.  Another  cause  is  an  apprehension,  on  the  part  of 
many  Editors,  that  the  public  will  not  sustain  them  in  se- 
vere criticism  on  American  productions.  This  is  an  erro- 
neous view  of  the  case,  in  every  sense.  In  the  first  place,  it 
is  the  province  and  the  duty  of  a  critic,  to  direct  the  public 
taste,  and  not  to  be  governed  by  it :  and  if  he  has  talent  and 
honesty,  ho  can  accomplish  this  duty ;  and  if  he  has  not  tal- 
ent and  honesty,  he  has  mistaken  his  vocation.  In  the 
second  place,  it  is  absurd  to  imagine  that  what  has  never  yet 
occurred  m  the  literary  history  of  any  other  country,  is  likely 
now  to  occur  in  this.  And  in  the  third  place,  it  will  be  early 
enough  for  editors  to  plead  this  excuse,  when,  by  experi- 
ence, they  have  proved  its  validity.  Besides,  where  is  our 
boasted  freedom  of  discussion  and  liberty  of  the  press,  if, 
even  on  literary  questions,  the  opinions  of  an  editor  are  to 
be  overawed  by  the  denunciation  of  his  subscribers  ?  To 
avoid  misapprehension,  however,  it  may  be  well  to  say,  that 
severity,  as  an  abstract  quality,  is  of  no  benefit  to  Criticism  : 
if  not  deserved,  or  not  applied  with  discrimination,  it  is  just 
as  false  and  contemptible  as  the  opposite  extreme.  In  the 
practice  of  unwarranted  severity,  an  Editor  may  very  pro- 
perly fear  tliat  the  public  will  not  sustain  him. 

V.  Again,  it  is  not  always  agreeable  to  the  private 
feelings  of  Editors  or  Critics,  to  speak  freely  of  the  faults  of  a 
living  writer,  whom  they  often  meet  personally,  and  per- 
haps personally  respect :  and  here  the  ceaseless  strain  of 
panegyric  finds  another  cause  of  continuance.  The  Critic  has 
not  the  independence  to  advocate  the  welfare  of  Literature 
on  its  own  merits ;  but  rather  sufiers  himself  to  be  blind- 
ed to  the  truth  that  his  social  and  professional  duties  are 
entirely  distinct  from  each  other ;  and  that  the  author  and  the 
man,  in  a  literary  point  of  view,  are  by  no  means  identical. 
It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  the  duty,  in  the  case  sup- 


ON  AMERICAN  LITERATURE.  13 

posed,  is  perplexing  and  painful — and  so  it  may  be  painful 
to  a  judge,  when  he  is  required  to  pass  sentence  on  a  crimi- 
nal, who  was  his  friend ;  but,  nevertheless,  whoever  takes 
upon  himself  the  office  of  criticism,  takes  upon  himself,  at 
the  same  time,  certain  duties  and  obligations  which  he  can- 
not honourably  or  honestly  disregard ;  and  it  is  too  late  for 
him  to  be  governed  by  his  feelings,  after  those  duties  are 
once  fully  assumed.  If  Critics  are  to  be  influenced  by  per- 
sonal considerations,  either  for  or  against  the  authors  they 
review,  then  Criticism  is  all  a  farce,  and  had  better  be  abol- 
lished  by  acclamation. 

VI.  Another  cause  is,  that  happy  coincidence  of  interests, 
which  induces  many  of  our  popular  novelists  and  poets  to 
become  contributors  to  sundry  of  the  papers  and  magazines. 
It  certainly  is  right  and  proper  that  these  writers  should  la- 
bour to  elevate  the  character  of  our  Periodical  Literature  ; 
and  it  certainly  would  be  wrong  and  highly  improper  for 
the  editors  of  such  periodicals  to  speak  ill  of  their  best  friends. 
Besides,  there  is  great  advantage  to  be  gained  by  rearing 
a  man's  monument,  as  well  as  in  writing  his  biography, 
while  he  yet  breathes.  He  is  thereby  enabled  to  judge  of  his 
own  epitaph ;  and  reward  the  sculptor  for  registering  qualities, 
the  existence  of  which  might  otherwise  never  have  been 
suspected — and  which,  when  recorded^  slumber  as  coldly  in 
the  soul  as  on  the  marble. 

YIL  The  last  cause  that  will  now  be  considered,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  production  of  sound  and  genu- 
ine Criticism,  like  that  of  genuine  poetry,  or  any  other  kind 
of  writing  in  its  purity,  requii'es  much  more  labour,  much  more 
study,  and  much  more  talent — than  that  of  its  spurious  sub- 
stitute. And  assuming  (what  is  clearly  proved  by  results) 
that  the  majority  of  our  Critics  regard  their  labour  as  drudg- 
ery, and  its  accomplishment  as  their  chief  object ;  assuming 
that  they  have  no  higher  interest  in  their  professional  duties, 
than  a  desire  to  get  through  with  them,  regardless  of  the  ten- 

3 


:14  AMERICAM  CIUTICI8M 

dericy  wefiect  of  the  perfcrmance ;  it  is  obvious  that  their  in* 
ducements  to  write  at  all  are  very  slight,  and  are  all  on  the 
side  of  errour  and  corruption — and  it  is  not  strange  that 
their  Criticisms  are  tainted  with  both. 

As  a  general  rule,  (for  there  are  honourable  exceptions,) 
tney  whose  business  it  is  to  do  Criticism,  seem  really  not  to 
be  aware  of  the  dignity  and  importance  of  their  vocation, 
nor  of  the  capabilities  of  the  style  of  writmg  belonging  to  it. 
And  instead  of  considering  what  they  owe  to  the  public ;  or 
the  value  of  their  services,  (when  properly  rendered,)  both  to 
the  public,  and  to  the  cause  of  Literature,  they  are  glad  of 
an  opportunity  to  shuffle  off  their  task  on  literary  friends, 
who  may,  or  not,  be  qualified  to  perform  it.  They  seem, 
indeed,  to  entertain  the  opinion  that  the  greater  part  of  what 
is  called  Criticism,  may  be  as  well  despatched  by  apprentices, 
as  by  master  workmen;  and  that  a  man  requires  no  more 
brains  to  write  a  suitable  Review,  than  an  intelligible  adver- 
tisement, of  a  literary  work.  But,  whatever  these  Critics 
may  think,  or  seem  to  think,  it  is  still  incontrovertibly  true, 
that  Criticism  is  itself  a  high  department  of  Literature,  and 
capable  of  displaying  a  degree  of  intellectual  power  equal 
to  almost  any  kind  of  writing  whatever.  Johnson's  Re- 
view of  Milton  may,  perhaps,  be  cited  as  a  proof  of  the 
perfection  to  which  Criticism  may  attain,  and  of  the  talent 
it  may  embody.  It  is  an  illustrious  specimen  of  impartial 
analysis  both  of  the  defects  and  the  beauties  of  an  author  ; 
and  it  transmits  to  the  reader  in  distant  ages  the  privilege 
of  studying  that  great  master  of  verse  with  the  comprehen- 
sive intelligence  and  the  discipUned  judgment  of  Johnson's 
gigantic  mind.  On  the  other  hand,  Gifford'h  Baviad  and 
McBviad  will  ever  endure  as  terrible  examples  of  the  Criti- 
cism which  unmasks  folly,  and  consigns  its  authors  to  an 
immortaUty  of  shame.  And,  if  our  Critics  would  condescend 
to  study  and  meditate  on  these  noble  specimens  of  the  art, 
they  would,  by  the  mere  force  of  example,  be  compelled  to 


ON   AMERICAN    LITERATURE.  15 

adopt  a  tone  of  sentiments  and  language  worthy  of  Ameri- 
can Reviewers. 

The  causes  to  which  I  have  imputed  the  delinquency  of 
the  majority  of  American  Critics,  and  the  present  character 
of  their  Reviews,  have  now  been  sufficiently  explained  to 
show,  that,  at  least,  those  Reviews  are  written  under  very 
unfavourable  influences ;  and  it  is  no  great  extent  of  pre- 
sumption to  say,  that  while  they  continue  to  be  thus  written, 
their  being  utterly  euid  universally  in  errour,  is  almost  a 
matter  of  course. 

It  is  now  time  to  turn  from  causes  to  effects,  and  examine 
a  little  more  closely  into  the  characteristics  of  American 
Criticism,  as  it  is.  And,  as  an  auxiliary  to  the  research,  it 
will  be  useful  to  read  the  following  extract  from  Paul 
Clifford. 

**  'Criticism  is  a  great  science — a  very  great  science  I 
It  may  be  divided  into  three  branches,  viz.  to  tickle^  to 
slash,  and  to  plaster.  In  each  of  these  three,  I  believe,  with- 
out vanity,  I  am  a  profound  adept !  I  will  initiate  you  into 
all.  Your  labours  shall  begin  this  very  evening.  I  have 
three  works  on  my  table,  which  must  be  despatched  by  to- 
morrow night.  I  will  take  the  most  arduous,  and  aban- 
don to  you  the  others.  The  three  cbnsist  of  a  Romance, 
an  Epic,  in  twelve  books,  and  an  Inquiry  into  the  Human 
Mind,  in  three  volumes.  I  will  tickle  the  Romance ;  and 
you,  Paul,  shall,  this  very  evening,  plaster  the  Epic,  and  slash 
the  Inquiry !' 

**  •  Heavens,  Mr.  Mac  Crawler  P  cried  Paul,  in  great 
consternation,  *  what  do  you  mean  ?  I  should  not  be  able  to 
read  an  Epic  in  twelve  books  ;  and  I  should  fall  asleep  ovef 
the  first  page  of  the  Inquiry.  I  pray  you,  sir,  leave  me  the 
Romance,  and  take  the  others  under  your  own  protection.' 

•*  *  No,  young  gentleman  1*  said  the  critic,  solemnly :  ^  the 
Romance  must  be  tickled ;  and  it  is  not  given  to  raw  begin* 
ners,  to  conquer  that  great  mystery  of  our  Science.'     ' 


16  AMERICAN  CRITICISM    ' 

"  *  Before  we  proceed  further/  replied  Paul,  *  explain  the 
three  branches  of  this  Science.' 

"'Listen,  then!*  rejoined  Mac  Grawler.  *  To  sUish^  is, 
speaking  grammatically,  to  employ  the  accusative,  or  ac- 
cusing case ;  you  must  cut  up  your  book  right  and  left,  top 
and  bottom,  root  and  branch.  To  plaster^  is  to  employ  the 
dative,  or  giving  case ;  and  you  must  bestow  on  the  work 
all  the  superlatives  in  the  language.  You  must  lay  on  your 
praise  thick  and  thin,  and  not  leave  a  crevice  untroweled. 
But  to  tickle,  sir,  is  a  comprehensive  business !  It  comprises 
all  the  infinite  varieties  that  fill  the  interval  between  slashing 
and  plastering.  This  is  the  nicety  of  the  art,  and  you  can 
acquire  it  only  by  practice.  A  few  examples  will  suffice  to 
give  you  an  idea  of  its  delicacy. 

*  We  will  begin  with  the  encouraging  tickle. 

'  Although  this  work  is  full  of  faults,  though  the  characters 
are  unnatural,  the  plot  utterly  improbable,  the  thoughts  hack- 
nied,  and  the  style  ungrammatical,  yet  we  would,  by  no 
means,  discourage  the  author  from  proceeding ;  and  in  the 
meanwhile,  we  confidently  recommend  his  work  to  the  at' 
tention  of  the  reading  public, 

*  Take,  now,  the  advising  tickle, 

*  T%ere  is  a  good  deal  of  merit  in  these  little  volumes, 
although  we  must  regret  the  evident  haste  with  which  they 
were  written.  The  author  might  do  better.  We  recommend 
to  him  a  study  of  the  best  writers : — then  conclude  by  a 
Latin  quotation,  which  you  may  take  from  one  of  the  mottos 
in  the  Spectator. 

*  There  is  a  great  variety  of  other  tickles:  the  familiar  f 
the  vulgar;  the  polite;  the  good-natured ;  the  bitter;  but, 
in  general,  all  tickles  are  meant  to  mean  one  or  the  other 
of  these  things,  viz.  This  book  would  be  exceedingly  good, 
if  it  were  not  exceedingly  bad :  or,  T%is  book  would  be  ex- 
ceedingly  bad,  if  it  were  not  exceedingly  good. 

'  There  is  another  grand  difficulty  attendant  on  this  class 


ON  AMERICAN  LITERATURE.  17 

of  Criticism  ; — it  is  generally  requisite  to  read  a  few  pages  of 
the  work  before  you  begin,  because  we  seldom  tickle^  with- 
out giving  extracts  ;  and  it  requires  some  judgment  to  make 
the  extracts  and  context  agree.  But  when  you  slash  or 
plaster,  you  need  neither  read,  nor  extract.  When  you 
slash,  it  is  better,  in  general,  to  conclude  with  this : 

*  After  what  we  have  said,  it  is  unnecessary  to  add,  thai 
we  cannot  offend  the  taste  of  our  readers,  by  any  quotations 
from  this  execrable  trash. 

*  And  when  you  plaster,  wind  up  with  saying, 

'  We  regret  that  our  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  give  any 
extract,  from  this  wonderful  and  unHvalled  work :  we  must 
refer  our  readers  to  the  book  itself.' " 

The  satire  of  this  sketch  is  so  broad,  tliat  it  really  seems 
like  caricature ;  yet  the  drawing  is  much  nearer  to  life 
than  our  critics  will  be  likely  to  acknowledge.  It  may  be, 
indeed,  that  they  do  not  avow  their  principles  as  ingenuously 
as  Peter  Mac  Grawler;  but  they  are  equally  obnoxious  to 
the  charge  of  giving  currency  to  false  doctrine  in  Literature, 
and  of  misleading  those  who  rely  on  their  published  opinions. 

If  this  accusation  be  deemed  unfair,  or  ill-founded,  the 
obvious  inference  from  the  foUovdng  fact  will  fully  sustain  it. 

Throughout  the  entire  range  of  the  current  Re- 
views OP  American  Books,  nine  out  of  ten  are  highly 
COMMENDATORY  Reviews.  They  are  made  up,  in  general, 
of  that  unqualified  and  indiscriminate  praise  which  Mac 
Grawler  denominates  plastering ;  they  are  occasionally  va- 
ried by  the  various  modes  of  tickling ;  they  are  very  seldom 
interrupted  by  the  process  of  slashing ;  and  never,  unless  as 
exceptions  to  the  general  rule,  do  they  contain  the  elements 
of  sound  and  impartial  criticism.  It  does,  indeed,  sometimes 
happen  that,  in  the  course  of  a  review,  trifling  faults  are  de- 
signated ;  but  it  is  obvious  that  this  is  done,  either  for  a  show 
of  impartiality,  or  to  set  the  praise  in  bolder  relief ;  for  the 
faults,  thus  specified,  are  usually  explained  away  and  apo- 
logized for  before  the  article  is  concluded. 


IS  AMCRIC.^}f  ciirncnM 

Now  is  it  to  be  supposed,  on  any  rational  principle  of 
estimation,  that  among  the  never-ending  scores  of  American 
writers,  at  the  present  day,  nine  out  of  ten  do  really  deserve 
the  embalming  of  periodical  and  unqualified  praise  ?  Is  it  to 
be  believed,  that  nine  out  of  ten  do  really  merit  a  niche  in 
our  (future)  Pantheon  ?  or,  do  really  win  a  literary  immor- 
tality? If  they  do  deserve  such  boundless  commendation 
and  reward,  then,  verily,  the  age  we  live  in  is  as  far  before 
the  Augustan  ages  of  Great  Britain  and  of  Rome,  as  thei/ 
were  in  advance  of  the  barbarism  of  primitive  Rome,  and 
the  darkness  of  feudal  Europe.  But,  that  our  Literature  is  not 
thus  in  advance  of  the  civilized  world,  and,  therefore,  that 
the  Criticism  which  (practically)  assigns  such  a  position  to  it 
is  unsound  and  deceptive,  I  shall  now  attempt  to  prove  by 
the  argument  embraced  in  the  following  syllogism. 

L  The  most  distinguished  writers  of  Great  Britain,  in  the 
present  age,  are  essentially  superior  to  the  most  distinguished 
writers  of  America, 

II.  The  most  distinguished  writers  of  Great  Britain  have 
never  received  from  the  British  Critics  a  greater  amount  of 
unqualified  praise,  and  high  panegyric,  than  the  most  distin- 
guished writers  of  America  have  received  from  the  American 
Critics, 

III.  It  follows,  then,  either  that  the  British  Critics  praise 
their  writers  far  too  little ;  or,  that  the  American  Critics  praise 
their  writers  far  too  much. 

Taking  these  three  propositions  in  their  order,  it  must  first 
be  shown,  that  the  most  distinguished  writers  of  Great  Bri- 
tain are  essentially  superior  to  the  most  distinguished  writers 
of  America. 

It  will  bo  obvious  to  all,  that  the  only  way  of  approach- 
ing this  point  is  through  the  medium  of  individual  compari- 
son :  and  as  such  comparison  is  called  for  by  the  very  nature 
of  the  argument,  I  trust  that  the  unpopular  experiment  of 
attaching  a  lower  estimate  to  American  authors  than  our 
own  Critics  are  wont  to  do,  will  at  least  escape  the  imputa- 


ON  AMERICAN  LITERATURE.  19 

tion  of  unworthy  motives.  I  would  say,  further,  that  as  this 
whole  discussion  is  on  the  subject  of  American  Criticism,  and 
not  (unless  incidentally)  of  American  Literature,  it  would  be 
equally  intrusive  and  tedious  to  attempt  here  an  analysis  of 
the  individual  merit  of  foreign  and  native  writers :  the  ut- 
most that  the  case  requires,  or  of  which  it  admits,  is  a  pass- 
ing remark  on  each  of  those  who  will  now  be  designated — 
without  intentional  injustice  to  any  one  omitted — as  the  most 
eminent  contemporary  writers  in  the  two  countries  respec- 
tively* '         V'  "• 

Great  Britain,  then,  has  produced  Scott,  Bulwer,  James, 
Marry  ATT,  D'Israeli: — Byron,  Campbell,  Montgomery, 
Wordsworth,  Coleridge  : — Hannah  More,  Mrs.  Sher- 
wood, Miss  Edgeworth,  Joanna  Bailey,  and  Mrs.  He- 
mans. 

And,  to  vie  with  this  brilliant  galaxy,  we  have  Irving, 
Cooper,  Paulding,  Brown,  Bird,  Simms,  Kennedy  : — 
Dana,  Draiie,  Halleck,  Bryant,  Percival,  Pinkney  : — 
Miss  Sedgwick,  and  Miss  H.  F.  Gk)ULD.* 

Is  it  possible  for  a  community,  entertaining  impartial 
opinions,  to  concur  in  the  belief  that  these  American  wri- 
ters possess  ability  and  talents  equal  to  their  distinguished 
contemporaries  across  the  Atlantic?  An  opinion  founded 
on  the  principle  of  considerations  and  allowances — an  opinion 
influenced  by  the  comparative  age  and  opportunities  of  the 
two  countries,  is  not  the  opinion  challenged,  or  that  under 
discussion.  The  tone  of  our  Reviews  is  unqualified  by  any 
proviso ;  their  tone  is  absolute,  and  without  any  reserve  for 
a  deficiency  of  advantages  on  our  part :  and  therefore  this 
investigation  and  comparison,  having  been  called  forth  by 
the  tone  and  character  of  those  Reviews,  must  be  pursued, 
also,  without  qualification.     In  this  sense,  the  question  is 

•  The  coincidenc*  otname*  might  lead  some  to  suppose  thai  the  writer  i« 
here  evincing  the  partialily  of  relationship,  and  this  note  is  introduced  merely  to 
disprove  such  a  supposition.  Miss  Gould's  acknowledged  talents  are  the  only, 
•ud  th«  ufficieaireMoo  for  her  being  placed  among  our  wiuQeot  autaon. 


80  AMERICAN  CRITICISM 

proposed  and  repeated,  Do  our  American  writer*  possess 
ability  and  talents  equal  to  their  distinguished  contempora- 
ries across  the  Atlantic  ? 

The  question  is  asked  in  a  spirit  of  fairness,  and  with  no 
shadow  of  intention  to  disparage  the  brilliancy  of  that  talent, 
which  we  are  all  proud  to  call  American.  The  question  is 
asked  argumentatively,  and  dispassionately;  and  with  no 
other  object  than  properly  to  follow  out  the  investigation, 
and  ascertain  whether  we,  as  a  people,  do  over-estimate 
the  talents  we  possess ;  and,  by  such  over-estimate,  deceive 
ourselves,  and  mislead  those  gifted  ones  among  us,  who  have 
already  won,  for  themselves,  and  for  their  country,  imper- 
ishable renown.  Let  us  render  to  them  all  the  homage  they 
have  deserved :  but  let  us,  also,  make  that  desert  the  strict 
rule  and  measure  of  that  homage. 

Walter  Scott,  by  universal  consent— I  say  universal^ 
for  in  my  life  I  have  heard  but  two  dissenting  voices — Wal- 
ter Scott,  by  universal  consent  is  the  monarch  and  master 
of  modern  fiction.  It  is  true,  the  monstrous  assumption  has 
been  in  two  instances  circulated  among  us,  that  he  who  is 
called  the  American  Walter  Scott,  is  the  full-grown  rival — 
the  successful  competitor — the  equal,  at  least,  of  his  illus- 
trious prototype  1 1  But  as  that  assumption  has  been  patron- 
ized by  a  distressingly  minute  minority  of  Americans — and 
Americans,  certainly,  are  most  interested  in  according  to 
Cooper  all  the  honour  he  really  deserves — it  is  manifest 
that  the  comparison,  thus  far,  is  immensely  in  favour  of 
Groat  Britain. 

BuLWER,  as  a  novelist,  must  be  ranked  next  to  Scott,  in 
the  scale  of  intellectual  power ;  and  although  his  genius  has 
been  perverted  by  his  immorality,  his  works  must  endure 
for  centuries  yet  to  come.  Genius  is  of  itself,  and  necessa- 
rily, immortal.  Its  fires  will  irradiate,  and  its  spirit  will 
embalm  the  musings  and  the  fame  of  its  possessor :  but,  in 
the  words  of  his  own  beautiful  simile,  the  fame  of  Bulwer 


ON  AMERICAN  LITER ATCRE.  21 

will  fling  its  brightness  down  the  long  vista  ot  ages,  partly 
by  reason  of  the  errours  and  imperfections  of  the  character 
whence  it  emanates.* 

The  second  American  novelist  is  Paulding,  and  he  is 
extensively  and  deservedly  honoured  as  such.  His  fame, 
like  Cooper's,  is  widely  spread ;  and  his  talents,  like  Ck)OP- 
er's,  are  universally  admired :  but  the  placing  of  his  genius 
and  ability  on  a  level  with  Bulwer's,  is  what  was  probably 
never  yet  attempted,  nor  regarded  as  among  possibilities. 

The  writings  of  James,  Marryat,  and  D'Israeli,  have 
gained  universal,  though  various,  popularity.  Any  one  of  the 
three  authors  has  sufficient  talent  to  confer  lasting  distinction 
on  the  land  of  his  birth ;  and,  in  the  absence  of  still  greater 
lights,  would  brilliantly  illuminate  the  literary  firmament. . 

On  the  other  hand,  great  praise  must,  and  assuredly  will» 
be  awarded  to  Brown,  Bird,  Simms,  and  Kennedy  ;  but  the 
comparison,  nevertheless,  cannot  result  to  their  advantage. 

In  poetry,  we  have  Dana,  Drake,  Halleck,  Bryant 
Percival,  Pinkney,  and  Miss  H.  F.  Gould.  Proud  names 
they  are;  and  some  of  them,  perhaps,  immortalized  in 
Song.  Yet,  what  a  contrast  must  we  all  acknowledge 
when  we  turn  to  Byron,  Scott,  Campbell,  Montgomery, 
Wordsworth,  Coleridge,  Joanna  Bailey,  and  Mrs.  Hb- 

MANS  ! 

Great  Britain  has  produced  Hannah  More,  Mrs.  Sher- 
wood, and  Miss  Edgeworth  :  a  combination  of  female 
genius  and  greatness,  such  as  the  world  never  before  saw. 
Their  writings  have  done  more  to  elevate  the  female 
character — to  ennoble  the  cause  of  Letters- — and  to  give  an 

•  "  There  ifl  one  circumstance  that  should  diminish  our  respect  for  renown. 
Errours  of  life,  as  well  as  foibles  of  character,  are  often  the  real  enhancers  of  c«- 
lebrity.  Without  his  errours,  I  doubt  whether  Hknhi  Qcatrb  would  have  be- 
come the  idol  of  &  people.  How  miDf  Whartons  has  the  world  known,  wh<^ 
dephv»l  of  their  frailues,  had  been  inglorious  1  The  light  that  you  so  admir*, 
reaches  you  through  the  distance  of  time,  only  on  account  yf  the  angles  and  un- 
•reiuieM  of  ibe  body  wbenoa  it  emanates.  Were  the  surfico  oi  the  mooa 
■mootb,  it  would  be  inruible.'*— Et;aBiia  Aiam. 

,   4 


22  .     AMERICAN  CRITICISM 

undying  reputation  to  the  land  of  their  nativity,  than  the 
combined  literary  works  of  all  the  other  females  lo  whom 
Great  Britain  has  given  birth. 

To  attempt  a  comparison  between  these  remarkable 
women,  and  the  authoress  of  Hope  Leslie,  would  be  mo* 
tual  injustice.  We  take  pride  in  the  renown  which  Hope 
Leslie  has  secured  to  our  countrywoman ;  and  the  more 
especially,  because  its  writer  is  the  only  daughter  which  Fame 
has  vouchsafed  to  our  family  compact  of  novelists.  But  we 
should  value  the  reputation  she  has  acquired  too  highly  to 
contrast  it  with  the  pre-eminent  brilliancy  which  irradiates  the 
names  of  More,  Sherwood,  and  Edoeworth. 

One  writer  we  have,  wlio  is  unrivalled  on  his  own  pecu- 
liar field  of  enduring  renown.  The  richness  of  his  invention, 
the  purity  of  his  language,  and  the  singular  versatility  of  his 
genius,  have  conspired  to  render  him  emphatically  the  favour- 
ite of  his  countrymen.  And  while  we  have  exulted  in  the 
production,  England  has  well  prided  herself  on  the  tem- 
porary adoption,  of  WAMiiiNCiToiy  Iuvino. 

Hero,  then,  let  the  comparison  cease ;  and  what  is  its 
result  ?  There  is  neither  presumption  nor  risk  of  contra- 
diction in  asserting,  that  its  result  is  the  establishing  of  the 
first  proposition : — that,  T%e  most  distinguished  writers  of 
Great  Britain^  are  essentially/  superior  to  the  most  distin- 
guished  writers  of  America. 

The  second  proposition  of  the  argument,  and  that 
next  to  be  considered,  is  this  :  The  most  distinguished  writers 
of  Great  Britain  have  never  received  from,  the  British  Critics 
a  greater  amount  of  unqualified  praise,  and  high  panegyric^ 
than  the  most  distinguished  writers  of  America  have  received 
from  the  American  Critics. 

The  proof  of  this  proposition  is  the  simplest  imaginable. 
The  dictionary,  the  arithmetic,  and  the  American  Reviews, 
furnish  all  the  requisite  testimony.     The  dictionary  contains 


ON  AMERICAJT  LITfiRATVRB.  23 

"  all  the  superlatives  in  the  language ;"  the  arithmetic  shows 
the  greatest  number  of  combinations  of  which  they  are  ca- 
pable; and  the  Reviews  give  the  sum  total.  Now,  as 
the  sum  total  is  exactly  the  whole  of  these  superlatives,  and 
as  the  British  Critics  cannot  well  appropriate  to  British  writers 
any  more  than  the  whole,  it  follows  inevitably,  that — The 
most  distinguished  writers  of  Great  Britain  have  never 
received  from  the  British  Critics  a  greater  amount  of  un» 
qualified  praise,  and  high  panegyric,  than  the  m^st  distin- 
guished  writers  of  America  have  received  from  the  Ameri' 
can  Critics. 

Agreeably  to  the  rules  of  argument,  the  question  of  fact 
is  now  reduced  to  the  single  contingency  embraced  in  the 
third  proposition:  viz.  The  American  Critics  praise  too 
much,  unless  the  British  Critics  praise  too  little.  This  con- 
tingency, however,  does  not  need  consideration.  The  pro- 
position was  originally  stated,  merely  to  comply  with  the 
logical  form  of  argument,  and  not  because  it  admitted  of 
question,  or  required  proof.  That  the  British  Critics  do  un- 
derrate British  talent,  in  the  aggregate,  is  a  position  that 
could  never  be  seriously  assumed  by  any  one,  and  it  would 
therefore  be  idle  to  argue  against  it. 

I  trust  that  it  will  not  be  djemed  presumptuous,  if  I  here 
take  leave  of  the  argument,  in  the  belief  that  these  two  posi- 
tions are  sufficiently  established  ;  viz. 

2%e  ordinary  tone  cf  American  Criticism  is  very  high 
panegyric;   and, 

Very  high  panegyric,  as  applied  indiscriminately  to  . 
American  Literature,  is  quite  beyond  the  intrinsic  merits  of 
its  object. 

It  will  not,  however,  be  forgotten,  that  all  that  has  been 
said  of  the  merits  of  American  writers,  is  either  in  the  way 
of  comparison,  or  in  reply  to  the  extravagance  of  Ameri- 
can'Critics.    It  is,  and  it  ever  will  be  a  matter  of  astonish- 


24  AMERICAK   OKinCUM 

mentt  that  a  people  so  youiig ;  so  comparatiyely  limited  in 
opportunities  of  cultivating  polite  literature ;  bo  recent- 
ly emerging  from  the  chaos  of  a  Revolution,  and  so  -wholly 
absorbed  in  modelling  and  adorning  the  civil  institutions 
which  that  Revolution  disenthralled — it  is,  indeed,  a  matter 
of  unqualified  wonder,  that,  despite  such  adverse  circumstan- 
ces, such  a  people  should  have  produced  a  race  of  men, 
willing  to  contend,  and  capable  of  contending  for  the  undy- 
ing honours  of  Literary  fame.  Their  unprecedented  success 
is  their  best  culogium,  and  their  highest  reward.  And  now, 
if  they  can  escape  the  dangerous  influences  of  flattery  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  vanity  on  the  other  ;  if,  unlike  ordi- 
nary men,  they  are  not  ruined  by  the  various  contingencies 
of  prosperity,  we  shall  have  little  cause  for  solicitude  about 
tlicir  future  career. 

Unfortunately,  **  men  are  but  men,**  and  reason  and  ex- 
perience show,  at  least  with  regard  to  our  novelists,  the 
evils  both  of  the  flattery  and  of  the  vanity  induced  by  it.  For 
there  are  instances  in  our  literary  annals  of  an  author's  re- 
ceiving universal  and  extravagant  praise,  and  being  so  far 
spoiled  by  it,  as  never  to  have  written  so  well  afterward. 
And  this  is  one  of  the  legitimate  and  the  necessary  results 
of  what  some  Critics  call  encouragement  to  native  genius. 
And  another  result  is  scarcely  less  pernicious.  The  ap- 
plause lavished  on  those  who  have  genius,  is  attracting  the 
attention  and  the  envy  of  those  who  have  it  not.  The  pro- 
cess intended  to  encourage  authors  is  encouraging  them  too 
fast ;  and,  unless  all  precedent  fails,  our  Critics  will  soon  find 
tliat  their  hot-beds  are  producing  more  weeds  than  flowers. 
In  fact,  the  dog-star  of  authorsliip  is  already  in  the  ascend- 
ant ;  books  are  multiplying  like  mushrooms ;  and  the  mon- 
strous opinion  is  gaining  currency,  that  any  body  can  write 
a  good  novel.  Yes  1  any  body  can  now  accomplish  what, 
within  ten  years,  the  very  loftiest  intellect,  and  the  most  ex- 


ON   AMERICAN   LITERATURE.  25 

alted  genius,  have,  in  particular  instances,  failed  to  perform. 
Scott  himself  has  written  a  poor  novel — and  so  has  Bulwer 
— and  Edgeworth — and  Cooper — and  nearly  every  one  who 
has  attained  enduring  eminence,  as  a  novelist,  during  the  last 
forty  years.  And  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  Critics  will  puff,  and 
the  people  will  sustain  them  in  puffing,  any  body  is  compe- 
tent to  a  task,  the  magnitude  of  which  really  requires  a  mind 
of  some  cultivation  even  to  appreciate  in  the  abstract! — 
Where  this  mania  is  to  lead  us,  time  alone  can  determine ; 
but  it  is  most  certain,  that  unless  Criticism  soon  asserts  her 
legitimate  prerogative,  and  brands  this  contagious  folly  with 
the  shame  it  deserves,  our  literary  annals  will  wear  a  blot 
which  neither  time  nor  change  can  obHterate. 

Our  situation  is  analogous  to  that  of  a  people  for  a  time 
enjoying  repose  under  a  just  and  good  government ;  but  at 
length  aroused  from  that  repose  by  the  encroachments  of 
tyranny  and  the  imposition  of  iniquitous  laws.  What  was 
originally  devotion  to  the  country,  becomes  now  slavery* 
to  the  ruler ;  and  duty  has  changed  from  submission  to  re- 
sistance. Thus  we,  for  a  time,  have  been  content  to  acknow- 
ledge the  supremacy  of  the  Critics ;  and,  while  they  were 
capable  and  honest,  we  were  wise  to  do  so :  but  now  that 
their  decisions  are  tainted  with  errour,  and  reliance  on  them 
is  deception  to  ourselves,  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  cast  off 
our  allegiance,  and  compel  them  either  to  abandon  their  of- 
fice, or  renounce  their  heresy. 

The  manner  of  accompUshing  this  revolution  cannot  here 
be  enlarged  upon,  but  its  results  may  be  stated  in  a  moment. 
Our  National  Literature  will  be  relieved  from  the  baneful  in- 
fluence of  flattery  and  the  artificial  ripening  of  false  criticism. 
Its  growth  will  be  checked  in  rapidity,  but  advanced  in 
strength ;  and  it  will  progress  slowly,  but  surely,  to  the  very 
highest  eminence  of  fame. 


86       AMXRICAir   CRinaSM  on  AMBRICAN  LnVEATVES. 

"  So  the  tam  oak,  to  Nature's  mandate  true, 
Advanced  out  alow,  and  strengthen'd  aa  he  grew  I 
But  when,  at  leHgtn,  (full  many  a  searan  o'er,) 
Hia  bead  the  blossoms  of  high  promise  bore  { 
When  etesdfast  were  his  roots,  and  souod  hia  hear^ 
He  bade  oblivion  and  decay  depart  { 
Flung  his  broad  arms  o'er  those  who  watch'd  hii  riae^ 
His  lofty  top  waved  proudly  in  the  skies ; 
And,  storm  and  time  defying,  still  remaina 
The  never-dying  glory  of  the  rlaiM  l" 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY-TEL.  NO.  W2^*« 
This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

This  bOOK  ISO  ^^  ^j^.^  fe^^^-       ,^11 

Renewed  books  are  subje«  toimmediate««lL 


LD2lA-60m-6,'69 
(J9096sl0)476-A -02 


General  Library 

University  of  CaUf ornia 

Berkeley 


\ 


